02/04/2015 | CAA 2015 – KEEP THE REVOLUTION GOING

Outline

Outline

  • What is a Scientific Community
  • Similarities with FS Community
  • Concepts of Reuse, Modulation and Reproducibility
  • Reproducibility in Archaeology
  • Conclusion

The scientific community

Diversity makes the difference

  • Science is cumulative
  • Differents points of views stabilise knowledge
  • Diversity invigorates problem solving
PhDKnowledge.012

Functions of the scientific community

Free Software and Science

Some similarities

  • Peer review
  • Validation and replication
  • Culture of credit, civility
  • Reputation
  • Communication
OpeningScience

Some dissimilarities

  • How project are developed, maintained, contested, and how ideas are exchanged
  • Challenge what is taken for granted in science

Modifiability

Chalenge the ‘Power of Knowledge’

C. Kelty, Two Bits

Reproducibility

Reproducibility (Cf. Ben Marwick)

KieranHealy--workflow

"We often forget that scientific knowledge is reliable not because scientists are more clever, objective or honest than other people, but because their claims are exposed to criticism and replication." (Fanelli 2013)

Pedagogical role

Pedagogy

" In pedagogical terms, Windows is to fish as UNIX is to fishing lessons "

  • Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition
  • An R Companion to Quantifying Archaeology by Stephen Shennan from David L. Carlson
Carlson-QuantifiyingArchaeology

Pedagogy

" In pedagogical terms, Windows is to fish as UNIX is to fishing lessons "

  • Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition
  • An R Companion to Quantifying Archaeology by Stephen Shennan from David L. Carlson
  • Quantitative Archaeology Wiki
iosa-DiggingNumbers

Blurring the borders

Blurring the borders

  • (Archaeological) project with R on Hittite seals
  • Turn into statistic question
RadoszyckiPremiere
Lombard Hélène et Radoszycki Lise

Blurring the borders: ‘Ambiguate’

  • (Archaeological) project with R on Hittite seals
  • Turn into statistic question
  • Mixing of competences
CachetsHittitesGithub

Conclusion

Key points

  • Relation of FS with archaeology
  • FS challenge the authority
  • Reproducibility disclose the research pipeline
  • Need of further advocacy

Colophon

Backup slide

Publishing and Pushing

KansaWorkflow
Kansa, E. C.; Kansa, S. W. & Arbuckle, B. Publishing and Pushing: Mixing Models for Communicating Research Data in Archaeology, International Journal of Digital Curation, 2014, 9.1, 57-70

References

Fanelli, Daniele. 2013. “Redefine Misconduct as Distorted Reporting.” Nature 494: 149. doi:10.1038/494149a.

Kansa, Eric C., Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Benjamin Arbuckle. 2014. “Publishing and Pushing: Mixing Models for Communicating Research Data in Archaeology.” International Journal of Digital Curation 9.1: 57–70. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v9i1.301.

Kelty, Christopher M. 2001. “Free Software/Free Science.” First Monday 6 (12). http://pear.accc.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/902.

———. 2008. Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Experimental Futures. Durham: Duke University Press. http://twobits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf.

Vinck, Dominique, and Claire Clivaz. 2014. “Les Humanités Délivrées. Savoir Et Culture Réinventés Hors Du Livre.” Revue d’anthropologie Des Connaissances 8.4: 681–704. doi:10.3917/rac.025.0681.